L.T.'s lawyer acknowledges ignorance of age is no defense, sets up Clintonesque defense

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on May 7, 2010, 1:55 PM EST

Lawyer Arthur Aidala continues his practice-building and attention-getting media tour. And in so doing he continues to arguably undermine the interests of his newest client, Hall of Fame linebacker Lawrence Taylor.

In a Friday afternoon appearance with Mike Francesa of WFAN, Aidala made several key — and possibly unwise — concessions.

First, and most importantly, Aidala acknowledged that ignorance of the alleged victim’s age is no defense to the charge of third-degree (i.e., statutory) rape. “100 percent,” Aidala said, even if the woman lied about her age.

Aidala then explained that, if the alleged victim admits that the defendant was concerned about her age and that she lied about her age, it could be a mitigating factor in plea negotiations. (Aidala cited his own experience as a prosecutor in support of this point.)

But Aidala overlooked one important aggravating factor — the Plaxico phenomenon. A big fish caught red handed helps advance in dramatic fashion law enforcement’s mission to deter crime. The intense media coverage that the case has received and will receive sends a powerful message to every man (or, theoretically, woman) who may be inclined to purchase the services of a prostitute that there are real risks, and real consequences, for this supposedly victimless crime.

Later in the interview, Francesa was marveling at the fact that the judge opted to read the charges verbatim during Thursday’s televised arraignment, assuming that the judge was merely looking for his “10 minutes” of air time. Aidala joined in the speculation without acknowledging the mindset that he surely applied as a prosecutor — if clear evidence of guilt falls into the lap of the law regarding a high-profile defendant, the law realizes that the process can have far-reaching benefits when it comes to scaring low-profile people into not committing crimes.

So if ignorance isn’t a defense, what will the defense be? Apparently, Aidala hopes to argue that Taylor did not have “sex” with the girl but, presumably, “Clinton sex.” We’ve yet to research whether the law contemplates intercourse only or whether it applies to some other form of sexual contact, but it appears that Taylor plans to admit that something happened. “The evidence is gonna show that there was some contact between the two and that they did not have sex,” Aidala said, explaining that by “sex” he meant intercourse.

Part of the problem here is that, before L.T. got “lawyered up,” he gave a statement to authorities. Aidala has yet to receive a copy of the statement, and Aidala made it clear he’s prepared to attack any aspect of the statement and the manner in which it was gathered in any way that these things can be attacked.

Aidala also promised to investigate “every aspect” of the case, and even though Taylor’s agent, Mark Lepselter, dismissed the possibility of a “set up” during a Friday appearance on Today, Aidala mentioned the possibility of extortion at least twice during the interview.

In all, it was informative and it was entertaining. But we still don’t understand how any of this benefits Taylor. Surely, prosecutors are listening to everything Aidala says, making strategic plans and decisions accordingly. At best, Aidala’s visit with Francesa has let us all know that we can fully expect him or Taylor to answer a question by saying that it “depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

51 Responses to “L.T.'s lawyer acknowledges ignorance of age is no defense, sets up Clintonesque defense”

jd says:May 7, 2010 1:57 PM

Best offseason ever.

GirthyOne says:May 7, 2010 2:00 PM

I guess if the defense is good enough for that POS Clinton, then it’s good enough for anyone else.

Deacon Blues says:May 7, 2010 2:01 PM

LT is going to kill Vince Foster to cover this up ??

shinsnake says:May 7, 2010 2:04 PM

Clintonesque defense? What that he was too stupid to know what he was doing was actually wrong? Wait, my bad, that’s Obama’s defense.
But I don’t think word games are going to work with Taylor. With Clinton, he still got “convicted” (impeached in the House) but it was only the Iraq conflict that kept him from getting fully impeached by the Senate. Plus, he was a President and a governor before that. Look at how much he was able to get away with just because of that status. LT doesn’t share that same level.

stadanko says:May 7, 2010 2:07 PM

It all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

geaux says:May 7, 2010 2:07 PM

So L.T.’s wife should be filing for divorce in 3…2…

Dewey Axewoond says:May 7, 2010 2:09 PM

If LT, Ben, the hillibillies from “Deliverance”,
the “sisters” from the Shawshank State Prison, the Aryan Brotherhood from “American History X”, the criminals from “Last House on the Left”, Zed from Pulp Fiction, Mike Tyson, and Slick Willie himself ALL combined together–like some enormous Rapist Voltron–they STILL couldn’t hold a candle to Barack Hussein Owebama, who takes first prize for being able to rape an entire country…

sideoutshu says:May 7, 2010 2:12 PM

I have met Aidala several times. He’s never met a camera he doesn’t like.

iusedtobeteddybayer says:May 7, 2010 2:12 PM

15’ll getcha 30. I’m just sayin’…

rodstiffington says:May 7, 2010 2:12 PM

WOW, Clinton got a BJ from a fat chick and everyone is STILL on his case. Geez, I guess all the “Clinton-haters” have never gone for a slump buster, huh?
Anyways… on LT… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Jesus, this story gets better by the minute!!

ebaileymershon says:May 7, 2010 2:13 PM

Great stuff Florio. Only blog I read.

ItalianArmyGuy says:May 7, 2010 2:14 PM

You may think this is a strange question coming from a Steeler fan – but does anyone else get the eerie feeling that Roethlisberger would have gladly paid that pimp to set-up LT?
And suddenly, all this crap by Roethlisberger and LT makes Tiger Woods look a lot more Tebow-ish, LOL

Meldog says:May 7, 2010 2:16 PM

Admitting the obvious doesn’t hurt LT. Ignorance of age is no defence in court. That’s the truth.
What he is doing is trying to remind everyone in the public that ignorance of age is LT’s moral excuse. As long as no one mentions it in court or promotes/rebuts it out of court, the public can assume that Lawrence Taylor didn’t know her age. This is how LT will be able to walk down the street without having spit fly in his face. Everyone knew he liked prostitutes, his public image is only tarnished if he sought an underage girl.

kazkal says:May 7, 2010 2:17 PM

Use the Chewbakka defense!

GoJags436 says:May 7, 2010 2:17 PM

Maybe he should try the “Chewbacca” defense.

Jack Acid says:May 7, 2010 2:19 PM

LT, you should have stuck with the crack. Then maybe you’d be too amped to bother with an underaged hooker.

zappa says:May 7, 2010 2:20 PM

I hear the girl has his DNA on her blue jump rope.

RedOokies says:May 7, 2010 2:21 PM

This defense is amateur garbage and won’t work. LT clearly doesn’t have the money for a top flight lawyer, which means he will get burned.
I think Florio’s analysis is dead on, dude is trying to get a plea bargain and won’t be able to get one because LT is famous.

BenRoethlisburger says:May 7, 2010 2:22 PM

Florio – says he used to be a lawyer and now writes for a sports rag.
Aidala – claims to be a lawyer, and acts like he writes for a sports rag.
Sounds about right.

EverybodyGotAIDS says:May 7, 2010 2:22 PM

….Rapist Voltron….LOL

Donna says:May 7, 2010 2:23 PM

I agree with the soliciting prostitution charge, but rape, Absolutely not. If this child lied and said she was 19 and had a pimp that arranged everything then he shouldn’t be convicted on a rape charge. I feel for this young lady and maybe this is what it will take to get her off the street, however young girls mature a lot faster now days than when in the past generations. They wear more provacative clothing and the only way a man can tell for sure is ask for an ID and then thats not a certainty. Wonder what happens to the pimp, he should be charged with human trafficking if he hasn’t already.

Slow Joe says:May 7, 2010 2:26 PM

Boy, give Florio one little story and he will beat it to within an inch of its life.

TheMagicIsYou! says:May 7, 2010 2:30 PM

“What that he was too stupid to know what he was doing was actually wrong? Wait, my bad, that’s Obama’s defense.”
Yes, the “Obama defense.” Hey, which president sold heavy weapons to Iran, lied about it, and eventually just let his underlings claim he was too dense to understand what he’d done? You’d think we’d have named this defense after him, instead. Oh well…
I knew the “Clinton” headline would bring this sort of thing out. Let the comment wars begin!

rydendonkeys says:May 7, 2010 2:30 PM

Bush lied, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines Died.
Clinton lied, and the world yawned.
‘The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.’
Sir Richard Dearlove
The above statement was made by Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of MI6, at a meeting in Downing Street of Tony Blair’s war cabinet on 23 July 2002. It was leaked to me as part of the now infamous Downing Street Memo, the minutes of that meeting.

Richard says:May 7, 2010 2:31 PM

Let’s review… Hotel, girl, rape (allegedly), booze, public humiliation, family embarrassment, kids picked on at school, etc… Have all the makings for a Happy Mother’s Day at the Taylor residence (Note I didn’t say “home”).

Now I know why I’m having so little luck. I should be asking the women for “contact” instead of sex. All this time they probably didn’t know what the hell I was talking about.

tedwilliamshead says:May 7, 2010 2:35 PM

There’s a great story with thesis of the Arthur Aidala interview on tedwilliamshead.com . . .

Ken West says:May 7, 2010 2:38 PM

I think the law is BS. If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Taylor did not know the age of the ho, then he should only be charged with renting a ho.
And renting a ho should not be illegal in the first place. It also should go without saying that the pimp deserves 100 years in prison and is the real criminal in this case. At this point I consider Taylor a victim.

Stoogie says:May 7, 2010 2:39 PM

# GoJags436 says: May 7, 2010 2:17 PM
Maybe he should try the “Chewbacca” defense.
————-
Best line of the day

alec says:May 7, 2010 2:41 PM

Uhh people wake up and realize what clinton did was not against the law; as morally wrong as it was, he didn’t break any laws, that’s why he wasn’t impeached. Impeachment is breaking a law as a president, and he didn’t “break a law as a president”. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in

No_Man says:May 7, 2010 2:42 PM

The “Clinton defense” won’t work. Under the NY penal code, all such a defense would do is change the charge from 130.25: “Rape in the third degree” to 130.40: “Criminal sexual act in the third degree,” both of which are Class E felonies that carry the same punishment. The only way he can get out of a felony charge altogether is to claim that there was no sex at all, but only “sexual contact” (i.e. touching without penetration), which would reduce the charge to 130.55: “Sexual abuse in the third degree,” a Class B misdemeanor.

515geo says:May 7, 2010 2:46 PM

Mr. Florio, You seem to be making a run with the original story which now has been cut at least in half. The words beat and raped right now don’t come into play. The fact that the man was arraigned but his own lawyer has not been given the statement seems a bit wrong to myself and a lot of other people. the media seems to always jump way ahead with a STORY, ie. Nancy Grace, remember her bs about the lacrosse players. You need to sit back and wait for the REAL story to come out before judging.
I do believe you were the writer, BLOGGER, that posted that Phil Simms was in the Hall of Fame!

shinsnake says:May 7, 2010 2:56 PM

Uhh people wake up and realize what clinton did was not against the law; as morally wrong as it was, he didn’t break any laws, that’s why he wasn’t impeached. Impeachment is breaking a law as a president, and he didn’t “break a law as a president”. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in
==================================
Now was it before or after Clinton lied under oath that they removed perjury from the list of federal offenses? Sorry young one, but what Clinton did was very much against the law, hence why he was successfully impeached in the House. The Republicans in the Senate decided to forego impeaching him completely from office as on the eve of the vote, he attacked Iraq, and they felt it was not in the best interest of a country in conflict to remove the sitting President.

jd says:May 7, 2010 3:01 PM

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Not getting a BJ.
Donna, you’re a women’s rights uncle tom.

D wins games says:May 7, 2010 3:08 PM

@shinsnake Where did you come up with this fantastic story on Clinton? From the Fox News History Book or something?

rydendonkeys says:May 7, 2010 3:08 PM

‘The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.’
Sir Richard Dearlove
The above statement was made by Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of MI6, at a meeting in Downing Street of Tony Blair’s war cabinet on 23 July 2002. It was leaked to me as part of the now infamous Downing Street Memo, the minutes of that meeting.
Is there anything worse than LYING YOUR COUNTRY INTO WAR!!!!!!
NO!!!!!!!!
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!
‘The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.’

TheMagicIsYou! says:May 7, 2010 3:10 PM

Clinton definitely broke the law. He perjured himself. But…
“The Republicans in the Senate decided to forego impeaching him completely from office as on the eve of the vote, he attacked Iraq, and they felt it was not in the best interest of a country in conflict to remove the sitting President.”
The Republicans overwhelmingly found Clinton guilty, and the few Republican “Not Guilty” votes (they were in the single digits) didn’t affect the outcome. The verdict had nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the Republicans lacking the needed supermajority to convict.
Wait, where are we again? Is this PFT? What the hell are we doing? GO COWBOYS!!!! DEZ BRYANT ROY

shinsnake says:May 7, 2010 3:14 PM

@shinsnake Where did you come up with this fantastic story on Clinton? From the Fox News History Book or something?
=================================
Life. You see, some of us were around during that time period and we remember it very clearly. Perhaps I should have been more clear and allowed that the majority of Republicans voted guilty, while 5 or so brave souls crossed over and voted not guilty in the interests of the country. At least, that’s what they said at the time. You wouldn’t be calling Collins, Snowe and Specter liars now would you?

steve g says:May 7, 2010 3:14 PM

It’s a dumb as s law that says he is supposed to know the girl is underage, when in fact, she told him otherwise.
If I were LT, I would claim I could not get an erection, so nothing happened. At his age, he could probably get a woman or two to testify to that being a fact about him…
In fact, that could have well been the case.

shinsnake says:May 7, 2010 3:19 PM

Man, you’re right rydendonkeys, we now have to go after Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, all people who attacked Iraq. Hell, half the Democratic caucus needs to be brought up on charges too! Damn, how did I sleep through all this? Call the Attorney General! Now! We may have to shut down the country while we prosecute all these liars! (NOTE: if they are proven to not be liars and instead turn out to have just been wrong, blame all that wasted time and money on rydendonkeys, it was his idea)

Mooch says:May 7, 2010 3:32 PM

Uh, Clinton didn’t (a) assault a coed in a college bathroom or (b) hook up with a 16 year old hooker.
Aside from that, it’s an apt comparison.
Now check where your 401k was when Clinton was in office vs. when GWB was in office. Then ask why you hate Bill so much.

blitzburgh1 says:May 7, 2010 3:42 PM

D wins games says:
May 7, 2010 3:08 PM
@shinsnake Where did you come up with this fantastic story on Clinton? From the Fox News History Book or something?
……….
He’s right.

Dewey Axewoond says:May 7, 2010 3:57 PM

Mooch says:
May 7, 2010 3:32 PM
“Uh, Clinton didn’t (a) assault a coed in a college bathroom or (b) hook up with a 16 year old hooker.”
____________________________
To your knowledge.
But why not give him the benfit of the doubt?–with an impeccable track record like his, right?
_________________________________
“Now check where your 401k was when Clinton was in office vs. when GWB was in office. Then ask why you hate Bill so much.”
____________________________
Ironically, (along with the Lincoln bedroom) it was being sold to the Chinese–just like my kids’ futures are being sold to the Chinese NOW.
Funny how history repeats itself, eh?
Or, were you trying to give Clinton credit for the balanced budget that Newt Gingrich & co. achieved through the Contract w/ America?
Congress holds the country’s purse strings, not the President.

TheMagicIsYou! says:May 7, 2010 4:27 PM

“Perhaps I should have been more clear and allowed that the majority of Republicans voted guilty, while 5 or so brave souls crossed over and voted not guilty in the interests of the country. At least, that’s what they said at the time. You wouldn’t be calling Collins, Snowe and Specter liars now would you?”
We’ll never know. Even if these three very moderate Republicans (coincidence?) had voted to convict, Clinton would not have been removed from office. It was never going to happen — the numbers just didn’t add up.
I’m a cynic, so, it doesn’t seem unbelievable to me that they were indeed just covering their asses while cozying up to the prez. Great way to earn a favor.
Football.

Frank Burns says:May 7, 2010 4:39 PM

According to ampats, “turning your life around” is proper defense for sexual assault charges.
Unless of course you play for the Steelers.

wlr says:May 7, 2010 4:49 PM

Man I bet big Ben is happy all this came up, now everyone will forget about him.

tkotanch says:May 7, 2010 6:30 PM

Oh boy..all the Tea Party morons are out in force bashing Obama…sorry deliverance boys, the black man has a brain.

Richard says:May 7, 2010 11:37 PM

Yea TKOTANCH, but only the left side is working

Route36West says:May 8, 2010 9:22 AM

Do you forget what you say 5 minutes after you say it.
You said earlier the reason to go on these shows and say these things are to get the public opinion on their side . Well Aidala hasnt said anything that will hurt his case in court all he has been saying are things that will help get the public to feel sorry for L.T. and to get on his side.
He said ignorance is not a defense which the prosecutes already know. Then he tried to use the Big Ben defense(which some people believe whole heartily) that its just another girl trying to take advantage of a celebrity by extorting money. The prosecutes already knew they would try this. Then he basically said he got head from the girl and didnt have actual sex with her. If the prosecutes didnt already know they were going to try that they would have soon enough.
So like I said everything he said was to try to get public opinion on their side while at the same time they didnt say anything the prosecutes didnt already know.
Seems pretty simple to understand and I didnt even have to pass the BAR.

MasterShake says:May 8, 2010 12:52 PM

Probably better than the “Whoops” defense though. 19 is the correct age though for acceptable intercourse. Any chick over that age is used up.